54G& 


•  NRLF 


irtr    THE 


SOVEREIGN  GRAND  LODGE 

I.  O.  O.  F. 


PATRIARCH  J.  B.  WILSON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

crttJ  ~ :  S,  ? 

GOLDEN  GATE  ENCAMPMENT, 

Respondent . 


Appeal  from  the  Grand  Encampment  of  California. 


BRIEF  FOR  RESPONDENT. 


CHAS.  N.  FOX,  P.  G.  M., 

For  Respondent, 


Winterburn  &  Co.  Printers. 


N  THE  SUPREME  GRAND  LODG 

I.  O.  O.  F. 


PATRIARCH  J.  B.  WILSON, 


Appellant, 


vs. 


r 


GOLDEN  GATE  ENCAMPMENT, 

Respondent,   j 

APPEAL  FROM  THE  GRAND  ENCAMP- 
MENT OF  CALIFORNIA. 


BRTEP  FOR  RESPONDENT. 


The  By-Laws  of  Golden  Gate  Encampment  fix- 
ing the  rate  of  benefits,  as  amended,  contains  the 
following  proviso : 

"Provided,  second :  That  when  any  patriarch  has 
received  in  the  aggregate,  as  sick  benefits,  the  sum 
of  $1,000,  he  shall  thereafter  be  entitled  to  and 
receive,  during  his  sickness,  the  sum  of  $2.00  per 
week  only." 


871666 


[a  J 

Before  the  adoption  of  said  proviso,  Patriarch 
Wilson  had  received  from  the  Encampment  up- 
wards of  $1,000  sick  benefits.  After  its  adoption, 
he  continuing  sick,  the  Encampment  paid  him 
regularly  the  sum  of  $2.00  per  week.  He  now 
claims  that  it  should  have  paid  him  at  the  larger 
rate,  to  which  he  would  have  been  entitled  in  the 
absence  of  the  proviso;  and  demands  payment  of 
some  55800,  the  amount  of  the  difference  between 
the  sum  which  he  received  after  the  adoption 
of  the  proviso,  and  the  sum  which  he  claims  that 
he  should  have  received.  This  demand  the  En- 
campment refused  to  comply  with,  and  the  Grand 
Encampment  sustained  it  in  such  refusal;  hence 
this  appeal: 

The  decision  of  the  Grand  Encampment  is  so 
manifestly  and  directly  in  accord  with  the  law  as 
laid  down  by  this  Grand  Lodge  at  its  last  session, 
in  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  H.  T.  Dorrence,  P. 
G.  M.,  from  the  action  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of 
California,  (Jour.  1880,  P.  8329,)  that  but  one 
conclusion  can  be  reached,  as  to  the  object  of  this 
appeal  I  ,<iz :  Tiifet.-ttisJ  to  secure  a  reconsideration 
of  the  question. by  this  Grand  Lodge. ' 

We  feel  hardly  at  liberty  to  assume  that  this 
Grand  Body  will  again  enter  upon,  or  listen  to  a 
discussion  of  a  question  so  recently  and  so  plainly 
decided  in  accordance  with  a  principle  adhered  to 
since  the  foundation  of  the  Order;  but  if  it  should 
consent  to  do  so,  justice  to  this  respondent,  and 
to  all  the  subordinates  of  our  great  Fraternity, 
must  be  our  excuse  for  endeavoring  to  show  that 
the  law,  as    now  established,  is  founded  upon  the 


[  5] 

great  principal  of  right,  and  that  this  appeal  should 
be  dismissed. 

We  will  not  discuss  the  question  of  the  right  of 
a  subordinate  to  control  its  own  finances,  and 
within  such  limitations  as  may  be  provided  by  the 
Grand  Body  under  which  it  exists,  to  regulate  by 
by-law,  the  amount  of  its  dues  and  benefits.  This 
right  has  been  so  often  asserted  by  this  Grand 
Lodge  as  no  longer  to  be  open  to  discussion  (See 
Dorrence's  appeal  above  referred  to,  and  cases  there 
cited.) 

.In  fact,  as  to  the  amount  of  benefits  to  be  paid, 
the  subordinate  is  sovereign,  so  long  as  the  laws 
of  the  State  Jurisdiction  are  obeyed. 

Journal  1864,  pp.  3684,  3698. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  laws  of  the  State  Juris- 
diction which  limits  the  right  of  a  subordinate  to 
alter  or  amend  its  By-Laws  in  relation  to  the 
amount  of  benefits  to  be  paid,  at  its  pleasure,  ex- 
cept that  it  shall  not  abolish  all  benefits.  In 
practice,  By-Laws  of  subordinates  making  such 
changes,  come  up  for  approval  every  year,  and  the 
right  to  make  such  change  is  constantly  recog- 
nized and  acknowledged. 


Lo 


The  provision  of  By-Law  under  consideration 
in  this  case,  is  similar  in  principle,  and  in  effect, 
to  that  considered  by  this  Grand  Lodge  in  1871, 
when  the  action  of  the  subordinate  was  fully  sus- 
tained. 

Journal  1871,  pp.  5138,  5234. 


[   4   ] 

There  has  been,  in  the  entire  jurisprudence  of 
the  Order,  no  single  departure  from  the  rule,  that 
while  the  subordinate  must  pay  some  benefits 
to  its  sick  and  disabled  members,  the  amount 
thereof  may  be  fixed  by  its  own  By-Laws,  subject 
to  local  regulation. 

By-Laws  are  always  made  by  their  own  terms 
subject  to  alteration  or  amendment,  in  a  mode 
therein  prescribed:  and  that  they  shall  be  so 
subject  is  a  part  of  the  obligation  and  covenant  of, 
and  contract  between,  the  members  of  every  sub- 
ordinate. To  deny  the  right  of  a  subordinate  to 
amend  its  By-Laws  in  this  respect,  would  not  only 
operate  to  impair  the  contract  which  members 
have  made  with  each  other  on  the  subject,  but 
would  impair  the  very  obligation  of  membership 
itself. 

If,  then,  a  subordinate  can  amend  its  By-Laws 
in  this  respect  at  any  time,  it  follows  that  it  can 
change  the  amount  of  benefit  to  be  paid  at  any 
moment,  and  without  regard  to  the  question  of 
who  may  be  sick  and  entitled  to  benefits  at  the 
moment  the  change  is  made,  or  the  amount  of 
benefits  which  any  member  may  have  received 
prior  to  the  change.  If  the  amendment  had  been 
a  general  reduction  of  all  benefits  from  $10.00  to 
$2.00  per  week,  without"  regard  to  any  amount 
that  had  been  theretofore  paid,  it  would  have  been 
in  such  strict  accord  with  the  law  and  the  usage 
of  the  Order,  that  no  one  would  have  thought  to 
question  the  right  of  the  subordinate  to  make  it. 
Why  is   it  less  lawful  because  it  is  only  to  apply 


[6] 

when,  and   after,  the  Patriarch  shall  already  have 
received  $1000  in  sick  benefits  ? 

If  a  subordinate  can  receive  the  financial,  moral  , 
and  fraternal  support  of  a  member  for  a  quarter 
of  a  century,  under  a  By-Law  allowing  ten  dollars 
per  week  sick  benefits,  but  without  having  drawn 
a  dollar,  and  then,  in  his  old  age,  so  reduce  the 
amount  as  that,  when  taken  sick  for  the  first  time 
in  his  life,  he  shall  receive  but  two  dollars  per 
week,  why  can  it  not  provide  for  such  reduction 
to  apply  to  members  who  have,  and  when  they 
shall  have  already  received  from  the  common  fund 
the  sum  of  $1000  in  benefits  actually  paid?  We 
can  see  no  difference  in  the  principle  affecting  the 
right,  and  assuredly  the  latter  provision  is  more 
just  than  the  former. 

Being  entirely  uninformed,  and  unable  to  con- 
ceive, of  an}'  argument  that  has  been  or  can  be 
made  in  support  of  this  appeal,  we  submit  the 
case,  with  a  prayer  that  the  appeal  be  dismissed. 

Fraternally, 

CHAS.  N.  FOX,  P.  G.  M., 

for  Respondent. 


Photomount 

Pamphlet 

Binder 

laylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Makers 
Stockton,  Calif. 

PAT.  JAN.  21.  1908 


871666 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


:  WI&B& 


